Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

A Question for Teabaggers

Page 3 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Nil_Nil
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

04 Jul 2011, 1:08 pm

This might help.


Start thinking Right



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,435
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Jul 2011, 2:49 pm

I constantly hear of Greece being brought up as the failure of the so called "nanny state." The fact of the matter is, Greece has for the whole of its' modern history been a poor country, with little industry. A much better example would be Germany, which, despite some problems, still has needed social programs and a social safety net, supported by a roaring industrial economy.
I don't think America has sunk so low yet that we'd have more in common with Greece than Germany.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,490
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

04 Jul 2011, 3:14 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
But rich people do cost the state more money. They have way more things that the state has the duty to protect. If you own land, you would like a government to guarantee you that your land ownership papers are yours and that nobody else forges a certificate to make that land yours. Even that small (and necessary) sort of regulation costs money. Then we have the cost of maintaining a power and water network to your many houses. The cost for emergency services to reach all of your stuff. Etc.

Are you actually suggesting that they net less for society than the poor or middle class?


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

04 Jul 2011, 9:43 pm

No?

But in the US they do pay less taxes than non-rich people, which is utter BS non-sense.

I was just stating the reason taxes should be a percentage and the reason they are a percentage basically everywhere. Government is something we humans made up as a service to people. The most basic thing this service does is regulate who own which land and what not. And more wealth means that government will need to spend more to do that service for you.


_________________
.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,435
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Jul 2011, 9:49 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
No?

But in the US they do pay less taxes than non-rich people, which is utter BS non-sense.

I was just stating the reason taxes should be a percentage and the reason they are a percentage basically everywhere. Government is something we humans made up as a service to people. The most basic thing this service does is regulate who own which land and what not. And more wealth means that government will need to spend more to do that service for you.


The right has bought hook, line, and sinker the whole notion that taxation on the rich is punishment for achievement. I for one am tired of hearing how we should stop punishing our most "productive citizens."
You're right - taxation and government exists for all of us, not just the rich. Just because I don't employ thousands of people doesn't make me any less than the super capitalists.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

04 Jul 2011, 11:04 pm

visagrunt wrote:
I favour consumption taxation as the means to fund government. Ideally, I would see income taxes (both personal and corporate) reduced to 0, and a value-added sales tax replace it.

The basic principle is that people who earn more money, spend more money--and the more that they consume, the larger the share of tax that they will contribute.

The other attractive element is that it gives government an incentive to maintain consumer confidence.

However, within this framework I would build two factors to reduce its impact on low income earners:

1) Zero rating certain basic goods and services: groceries (but not convenience food or restaurants), rent, previously owned residential property, insurance, medical and dental goods and services and education goods and services.

2) Rebates for low income earners to transfer some of the tax burden.

Canadian readers will find none of this to be novel (other than the reducing income tax to 0 part).

Actually some Tea Party members have proposed that change too. They call it the "fair tax". I agree it would be a good change, not least because it would probably make it more difficult to hand out tax breaks to special interests.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer